Brian Allan Ludmer

The respondent father brought a motion alleging the applicant mother breached a previous trial decision regarding family therapy, information sharing, and parenting time.

The father sought financial penalties and further directions on therapy protocols.

The court dismissed the motion, finding the mother was in compliance with the trial decision and that the father was attempting to re-litigate trial issues.

The mother was awarded full indemnity costs.

The Respondent Father brought a motion seeking a declaration that the Applicant Mother was in breach of previous court orders, a compliance order, and parenting orders, including changing the summer holiday schedule and prohibiting the child from sleeping in the same bed as either parent.

The court found that the Father had not proven material non-compliance by the Mother, noting only isolated incidents of minor non-compliance.

The court also ruled that the Father failed to demonstrate a material change in circumstances required to vary an interim parenting order under the Children's Law Reform Act.

The motion was dismissed, with the court emphasizing that the requested substantive relief was not in the child's best interests and lacked expert evidence.

This is a high-conflict family law trial concerning parenting time and decision-making responsibility for 16-year-old twins.

The father alleged parental alienation by the mother and sought a "protective separation" order, granting him sole parenting time and decision-making with no contact between the mother and children for 90-120 days to facilitate reconciliation therapy.

The mother sought to continue the existing 50/50 shared parenting and decision-making arrangement.

The court rejected the father's request for "protective separation" finding it extreme and not in the children's best interests, especially given recent positive progress in the children's relationship with the father under the current 50/50 arrangement.

The court found the mother did not engage in parental alienation but erred by allowing the children to dictate parenting time.

The court also found the father's expert witness, a social worker, to be biased and not neutral.

The court ordered the continuation of shared decision-making and equal parenting time, and awarded costs to the mother.

The Applicant Mother sought primary residency of her son, Franky, and orders related to the Respondent Father's alleged breaches of prior orders and Franky's counselling.

The court dismissed the Mother's motion, maintaining Franky's primary residence with the Father.

The court found that Franky's stated views and preferences, his success in the Father's care, and the potential harm of forced counselling on an adolescent outweighed the Mother's claims of parental alienation and the findings of a non-court-appointed counselling centre.

The court declined to make findings of breach due to insufficient and untested evidence.

The applicant father initiated a parenting review seeking joint parental decision-making, week-about equal parenting time for their 13-year-old son J.K., J.K.'s enrollment in a Brampton high school, international travel permission, and modification of a restraining order.

The respondent mother opposed these requests, seeking to preserve her exclusive decision-making authority, maintain the current parenting schedule, and enroll J.K. in a Toronto school.

The court, conducting a fresh inquiry into J.K.'s best interests under the Divorce Act, found the father had made efforts to address past family violence and parental alienation but still exhibited problematic behaviors undermining the mother's parenting.

The court increased the father's parenting time incrementally but denied his request for joint decision-making and J.K.'s transfer to a Brampton school, citing the need for stability and the mother's demonstrated child-focused decision-making.

Travel restrictions were partially lifted for the father (within Ontario) and fully for the mother.

This endorsement addresses the costs of a dismissed motion to change a 2014 final order concerning child support and s. 7 expenses.

The respondent father, as the successful party on the underlying motion, sought costs on a full recovery basis, claiming over $303,000.

The court upheld the presumptive entitlement of the respondent father to costs, finding the applicant mother's challenge to the 2014 settlement to be groundless and unreasonable.

After considering factors such as the parties' behaviour, time spent, and offers to settle (none of which triggered cost consequences), the court fixed the respondent father's costs at $89,896.13, significantly less than claimed, and disallowed certain disbursements.

The costs award was made enforceable as a support order.

The court addressed cross-motions between separated parents concerning parenting time, decision-making, and support for their two children.

The applicant mother sought compliance with a prior consent order for shared parenting of their 14-year-old son (C.) and remedies for alleged non-compliance, including reconciliation therapy.

The respondent father sought to vary the order for C. to reside primarily with him, reflecting C.'s wishes.

The court dismissed the mother's non-compliance claim, finding a credible explanation for the father's actions given the interim nature of the prior order and the mother's contradictory stance.

The court varied the order for C. to reside primarily with the father, giving significant weight to C.'s strong and consistent views and preferences, citing a breakdown of trust with the mother.

The mother's request for reconciliation therapy was dismissed due to C.'s resistance and lack of compelling evidence for its benefit at this stage.

The court also dismissed the mother's request for sole decision-making authority for their 12-year-old daughter (G.), noting no imminent significant decisions and poor parental communication.

Support variation claims from both parties were dismissed due to non-compliance with Family Law Rules regarding financial disclosure, with these issues deferred to trial.

The court ordered the father to provide financial disclosure and both parents to refrain from derogatory remarks about each other to the children.

This endorsement addresses the admissibility of extensive hearsay evidence, particularly statements attributed to children, presented via affidavit in a family law trial.

The court reiterated that while evidentiary rules may be flexible for children's best interests, the hearsay rule is not relaxed for trial affidavits.

It emphasized the "necessity and reliability" test for admitting children's hearsay, finding that the impugned statements lacked sufficient procedural and substantive reliability, especially given the children's vulnerabilities and the absence of independent corroboration.

The court largely disallowed the admission of the contested hearsay evidence.

The applicant father brought a motion for an order compelling family therapy for his 16-year-old daughter, D, to support their relationship, which had deteriorated significantly.

The respondent mother and the Office of the Children's Lawyer, representing the child, opposed the motion.

The court dismissed the father's motion, giving considerable weight to the mature minor's strong and consistent opposition to forced therapy.

The court found that while it had jurisdiction to order therapy, the potential benefits did not outweigh the risks of exacerbating the child's physical and mental health issues, and that such an order would be practically unenforceable given the child's age and maturity.

The moving party brought a motion for leave to appeal an order dated October 3, 2022.

The Divisional Court dismissed the motion for leave to appeal and ordered the moving party to pay costs of $3,000 to the responding party.

The respondent brought a motion seeking to enforce parenting time orders, alleging the applicant was alienating their daughter.

The motion was dismissed, as was the applicant's verbal request for a section 30 assessment.

The applicant sought full recovery costs of $17,972.

The court awarded partial indemnity costs of $8,000 to the applicant, finding the respondent did not act unreasonably in bringing the motion and noting the applicant's divided success regarding the section 30 assessment.

The applicant father brought a motion for costs under rule 1(8) of the Family Law Rules, alleging the respondent mother breached multiple terms of a prior order regarding virtual parenting time.

The court found the mother's evidence unreliable, relying on previous findings of her manipulative and alienating behaviour.

The court concluded the mother breached several provisions by undermining the father's parenting time, failing to ensure the children were visible, and failing to document and address the children's resistance.

The court ordered the mother to pay $10,000 in costs as a sanction and incentive for future compliance.

The applicant mother and respondent father brought competing motions within a motion to change.

The mother sought a private parenting capacity assessment under section 30 of the CLRA, while the father sought a finding of non-compliance against the mother for failing to facilitate his parenting time, as well as orders for OCL involvement and reconciliation therapy.

The court found that both parents had contributed to the high-conflict dynamic and that the mother had failed to make best efforts to ensure the children attended parenting time.

However, the court declined to order reconciliation therapy without an expert recommendation, noting the potential risk to the children's well-being.

The court ordered a private section 30 assessment and imposed a gradual reintegration schedule to resume the children's contact with the father.

The respondent father brought a motion to enforce existing shared parenting orders and for makeup time, alleging the applicant mother was alienating their 14-year-old daughter, who refused to attend parenting time.

The daughter suffered from severe anxiety and had threatened suicide.

The court dismissed the motion, finding it could not determine on untested affidavit evidence whether the mother was responsible for the non-compliance or whether forcing compliance would be in the child's best interests given her mental health issues.

The mother's informal request for a section 30 assessment was also dismissed without prejudice.

The moving party sought an extension of time to seek leave to appeal a temporary order granting the responding party sole care of their child pending further agreement or order.

The moving party missed the original hearing due to communication issues after insisting on receiving materials by mail or fax.

The court applied the test for extending time and found that the moving party did not form an intention to appeal within the required period, and that the proposed appeal lacked merit as it did not meet the high threshold for leave to appeal an interlocutory order.

The motion was dismissed with costs awarded to the responding party.

The applicant father brought a motion for non-compliance against the respondent mother regarding her failure to obey court orders relating to parenting time, therapy for the children, her own therapy, and costs.

The mother brought a cross-motion alleging the father failed to pay child support arrears.

The court found the mother non-compliant with multiple orders, noting her ongoing alienating behaviour and failure to facilitate the children's relationship with the father.

The mother's cross-motion was dismissed as no arrears were owed.

The court ordered specific remedies under Rule 1(8) of the Family Law Rules, including the resumption of virtual parenting time, the appointment of specific therapists for the children, and an order restricting the mother from bringing further motions without leave of the court.

The applicant mother brought a motion to change a 2014 final consent order regarding child support and section 7 expenses.

She sought to set aside the fixed child support provisions, arguing she did not understand the settlement due to cognitive distress and financial pressure.

The court dismissed her claims, finding her evidence not credible and upholding the settlement agreement.

The court also imputed an annual income of $90,000 to the applicant for 2017 and 2018 due to intentional under-employment, and ordered her to pay her 50 percent share of section 7 expenses totaling $8,060.82.

The respondent mother brought a motion to enforce a final parenting order, alleging the self-represented father had unilaterally withheld one child from her care and undermined her relationship with both children.

The court permitted the motion to proceed without a prior case conference under Rule 14(4.2) of the Family Law Rules, finding urgency and a deteriorating relationship with the second child such that delay would be contrary to the children's best interests.

Applying authorities requiring a parent to take positive steps to ensure compliance with access and parenting orders, the court found the father in breach and rejected the position that a teenager's resistance excused non-compliance.

The court ordered prompt family reconciliation therapy and warned that continued breach could result in contempt consequences, while deferring non-urgent financial issues to the upcoming case conference.

The respondent father brought a motion for compliance against the applicant mother, alleging she failed to obey a final parenting order when their two children refused to attend scheduled parenting time.

The mother argued the children, aged 14 and 11, were refusing to go and she could not force them.

The court found the mother failed to meet her positive obligation to actively encourage and facilitate the parenting time, instead leaving the decision up to the children and emboldening their non-compliance.

The court granted the father's motion in part, finding a breach of the order and imposing sanctions under Rule 1(8) of the Family Law Rules.

The father applied for a protective separation and sole decision-making authority to repair his relationship with his two children, alleging parental alienation by the mother.

The court found that the mother had engaged in alienating behaviours and failed to authentically support the children's relationship with their father.

The court ordered a 90-day protective separation during which the children will reside solely with the father and have no contact with the mother.

The father and children were ordered to participate in the Turning Points for Families intensive reunification program.

The mother's claim for unjust enrichment regarding the jointly owned home was dismissed, and various financial and child support orders were made.